Munsilal @ Munshilal Rai vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3830 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 37228 of 2020
   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2020 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
                                        Samastipur
 ======================================================

Munsilal @ Munshilal Rai, aged about 72 years, Male, Son of Late Bikau Rai, Resident of Village - Jitwarpur Chouth, Farpura, Ward No 13, PS - Samastipur (Muffasil), District - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP For the Informant : Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 30-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel

for the petitioner; Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State and Mr. Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Samastipur (Muffasil) PS Case No. 219 of 2020 dated 25.05.2020,

instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

4. The allegation against the petitioner, who is the

father-in-law of the deceased, is of being party to burning her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

allegation as far as petitioner is concerned is totally false as there Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37228 of 2020 dt.30-07-2021

is no allegation in the past with regard to any such misconduct of

the petitioner, who is the 72 years old father-in-law of the

deceased. It was submitted that even from the FIR, it is apparent

that the petitioner had accompanied the deceased to the hospital

and even after the body was taken, he was on the same vehicle

though it has been stated that he got down soon thereafter. It was

submitted that the death certificate issued from the hospital

reveals that it was a case of 100% burn and death having occurred

within a few hours of the incident, it is absolutely impossible that

the victim would have been in a position to give such detail

description to her mother with regard to the complicity of the

family members of the petitioner, and he himself, in the crime of

burning her. Learned counsel submitted that two years prior to the

incident, the petitioner had filed an informatory petition before the

Sub Divisional Officer, Samastipur against his four sons and two

daughters-in-law, including the deceased, that they used to

mistreat him and he was apprehensive that they may cause harm

to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, it

is not expected that a grandfather would make his own grand

chindren orphans, that too at such late stage in life, when he is

almost 72 years of age. It was submitted that the petitioner besides

having clean antecedent, was all alone present along with the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37228 of 2020 dt.30-07-2021

deceased wherever she went for treatment. He submitted that the

husband of the deceased i.e., son of the petitioner was arrested but

later was granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench and further that the

two minor children of the deceased are now living in the house of

the petitioner along with their father. It was submitted that in the

FIR the informant has not disclosed as to what was the specific

demand of dowry which had been made and also that he has not

stated with regard to there being any complaint in the past, which

shows that such allegation is not correct.

6. Learned APP submitted that the petitioner being the

father-in-law and death having occurred in the matrimonial home

cannot plead innocence.

7. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that the

deceased was done to death and the petitioner and his family

members used to regularly torture and assault her. However, it was

not controverted that neither any cause for such maltreatment to

the deceased has been disclosed in the FIR nor there is mentioning

of any past complaint.

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

finds force in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37228 of 2020 dt.30-07-2021

below within six weeks from today, the petitioner be released on

bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five

thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

satisfaction of the learned ACJM 2nd Samastipur in Samastipur

(Muffasil) PS Case No. 219 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid

down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

and further, (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of

the petitioner and (ii) that the petitioner shall co-operate with the

Court and police/prosecution. Failure to co-operate shall lead to

cancellation of his bail bonds.

9. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

                     10.      The    petition      stands     disposed         of   in   the

           aforementioned terms.


                                                (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T